News6 mins ago
Once Again It Seems That It's All The Police's Fault.
18 Answers
http://
According to Jahan Mahmood the government is misrepresenting the severity of the threat facing the UK, can this also be true?
Well some managed to get their amount of stop & searches cut down, one must ask, is our Mr Mahmood trying similar tactics?
According to Jahan Mahmood the government is misrepresenting the severity of the threat facing the UK, can this also be true?
Well some managed to get their amount of stop & searches cut down, one must ask, is our Mr Mahmood trying similar tactics?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think there's a world of difference between saying that "the current approach is counterproductive and could be improved" and "it's all the police's fault". If you are arresting people and not charging them at the levels apparently seen, ie about 60%, that's rather too high and should be looked at. Why are these arrests not leading to charges? Not enough evidence? The evidence that is available is not admissible in court? Or is the evidence that led to the arrest just plain wrong in the first place? Not sure, probably a mix of these.
One way or another, it seems to me that there's a case to be made for more effective police actions against potential terrorism, whatever that means. But no. I absolutely do not see this as meaning that the police are at fault. Even if it does drive people further into radicalisation when they are arrested and then released, it seems to follow that such people must have been heading in that direction anyway. The arrest was then a catalyst but absolutely not a cause.
As to misrepresenting the threat, I suppose it's a risk of relying on language. I can believe that the threat is severe and real. But at the same time it's also fairly small, in comparison to, say, road deaths. I don't think that makes the threat not "severe", though. It only takes one Paris-style incident to justify that description.
One way or another, it seems to me that there's a case to be made for more effective police actions against potential terrorism, whatever that means. But no. I absolutely do not see this as meaning that the police are at fault. Even if it does drive people further into radicalisation when they are arrested and then released, it seems to follow that such people must have been heading in that direction anyway. The arrest was then a catalyst but absolutely not a cause.
As to misrepresenting the threat, I suppose it's a risk of relying on language. I can believe that the threat is severe and real. But at the same time it's also fairly small, in comparison to, say, road deaths. I don't think that makes the threat not "severe", though. It only takes one Paris-style incident to justify that description.
Zacs-Master
/// I really wish you wouldn't write inflammatory (or wholly untrue) headlines AOG. The word 'contributing' is used in the headline of the actual piece. ///
Not that I need you to tell me how to word my headlines, but in response, the Independent's headline may say "contributing", because that happens to be their own particular method of interpreting it for some strange reason.
But this is what Mr Mahmood actually said,
*** "Far too many people were being arrested, with the majority never charged or convicted," ***
That all 'SEEMS' to be blaming the police's actions, so my headline is perfectly valid. (please note also the inclusion of the word "seems" both in my headline as well as further text)
/// This just leads to people being able to pick fault with your posts right from the off. You then just respond angrilly and the bickering starts. ///
There that was not me responding angrily now was it? So go ahead and pick fault if you feel you must, but next time make sure you have your facts right before you do.
And if you judge that to be "angrily", you've not heard anything yet.
/// I really wish you wouldn't write inflammatory (or wholly untrue) headlines AOG. The word 'contributing' is used in the headline of the actual piece. ///
Not that I need you to tell me how to word my headlines, but in response, the Independent's headline may say "contributing", because that happens to be their own particular method of interpreting it for some strange reason.
But this is what Mr Mahmood actually said,
*** "Far too many people were being arrested, with the majority never charged or convicted," ***
That all 'SEEMS' to be blaming the police's actions, so my headline is perfectly valid. (please note also the inclusion of the word "seems" both in my headline as well as further text)
/// This just leads to people being able to pick fault with your posts right from the off. You then just respond angrilly and the bickering starts. ///
There that was not me responding angrily now was it? So go ahead and pick fault if you feel you must, but next time make sure you have your facts right before you do.
And if you judge that to be "angrily", you've not heard anything yet.
Gromit
/// but arresting so many innocent citizens is bound to leave a sour taste. ///
Do you really believe them to be totally innocent?
They may well be technically innocent, in the fact that they haven't yet been charged and convicted, but then there are a good few high ranking paedophiles still escaping being charged and convicted.
/// but arresting so many innocent citizens is bound to leave a sour taste. ///
Do you really believe them to be totally innocent?
They may well be technically innocent, in the fact that they haven't yet been charged and convicted, but then there are a good few high ranking paedophiles still escaping being charged and convicted.
'The research follows claims over this summer that British authorities were CONTRIBUTING to radicalisation. A Survation poll in April of this year claimed four out of 10 British Muslims believed the police and MI5 were CONTRIBUTING to radicalisation.'
That means the majority of Muslims don't believe that the police and MI5 were contributing to radicalisation.
Still think your headline is correct?
That means the majority of Muslims don't believe that the police and MI5 were contributing to radicalisation.
Still think your headline is correct?
AOG,
Are you accusing the police of dereliction of duty by not prosecuting criminals?
We can only judge a person by their record. If they have never been prosecuted, never been judged or not found guilty of anything, then we must take the view they are innocent.
If we don't go on their record, we are judging them on something else, what is that? Is it their religion (they are muslim so they must be terrorists) ?
Are you accusing the police of dereliction of duty by not prosecuting criminals?
We can only judge a person by their record. If they have never been prosecuted, never been judged or not found guilty of anything, then we must take the view they are innocent.
If we don't go on their record, we are judging them on something else, what is that? Is it their religion (they are muslim so they must be terrorists) ?
Zacs-Master
/// four out of 10 British Muslims believed the police and MI5 were CONTRIBUTING to radicalisation.' ///
/// That means the majority of Muslims don't believe that the police and MI5 were contributing to radicalisation. ///
It matter not how many ARE or how many are NOT blaming the police, in the article it appears that Jahan Mahmood is, so therefore my headline is correct.
/// Still think your headline is correct? ///
Yes, and you are wrong, get over it.
/// four out of 10 British Muslims believed the police and MI5 were CONTRIBUTING to radicalisation.' ///
/// That means the majority of Muslims don't believe that the police and MI5 were contributing to radicalisation. ///
It matter not how many ARE or how many are NOT blaming the police, in the article it appears that Jahan Mahmood is, so therefore my headline is correct.
/// Still think your headline is correct? ///
Yes, and you are wrong, get over it.
Gromit
/// If we don't go on their record, we are judging them on something else, what is that? Is it their religion (they are muslim so they must be terrorists) ? ///
If that was the case they would be rounding up all Muslims.
Maybe they are going on their record, but at the moment they haven't enough evidence to be sure of a conviction?
Maybe word got around hard drives wiped, other evidence got rid of, we are not taking about shop lifters here.
/// If we don't go on their record, we are judging them on something else, what is that? Is it their religion (they are muslim so they must be terrorists) ? ///
If that was the case they would be rounding up all Muslims.
Maybe they are going on their record, but at the moment they haven't enough evidence to be sure of a conviction?
Maybe word got around hard drives wiped, other evidence got rid of, we are not taking about shop lifters here.
as a pink anglo christian agree Jahan Mahmood I'm afraid
and here we have a case from Oz which is in every Muslim's mind.
http://
The attorney general whose name really was Alexander McSporran really DID say oops- shouldnt have done that ....
by that time the doctor had been fired, deprived of his licence and deported and had no come back for damages as he had to be IN the country and was on the forbidden entry list oops indeed
Every Muslim wonders if this will happen to him and gets the answer maybe
and here we have a case from Oz which is in every Muslim's mind.
http://
The attorney general whose name really was Alexander McSporran really DID say oops- shouldnt have done that ....
by that time the doctor had been fired, deprived of his licence and deported and had no come back for damages as he had to be IN the country and was on the forbidden entry list oops indeed
Every Muslim wonders if this will happen to him and gets the answer maybe
// There's probably a lot of good reasons they don't get charged and good reasons why they're arrested in the first place. //
excuse me - ?
You get arrested on suspicion - a very low hurdle
and charged on well evidence that you have done the evil deed
( 67% still acquitted on jury trial so the evidence neednt bethat good )
and yeah I think there should be a link between the two ....
excuse me - ?
You get arrested on suspicion - a very low hurdle
and charged on well evidence that you have done the evil deed
( 67% still acquitted on jury trial so the evidence neednt bethat good )
and yeah I think there should be a link between the two ....
Just because Jahan Mahmood 'appears' (your own wording AOG) to be blaming the police does not make it fact.
The survey indicates that the majority of people he is saying that the police are arresting do NOT think that this leads to radicalisation. Therefore your headline is incorrect and his opinion is.
The survey indicates that the majority of people he is saying that the police are arresting do NOT think that this leads to radicalisation. Therefore your headline is incorrect and his opinion is.
Zacs-Master
As I have already said numbers don't come into it.
Take this scenario A black person is stopped and searched and in the process and through no fault of the police, he happens to fall over and hits his head, he then complains that if the police had not stopped him he wouldn't have fell over.
The headline would then be 'ONCE AGAIN IT SEEMS THAT IT'S ALL THE POLICE'S FAULT'.
Therefore my headline would be correct, and his opinion not.
As I have already said numbers don't come into it.
Take this scenario A black person is stopped and searched and in the process and through no fault of the police, he happens to fall over and hits his head, he then complains that if the police had not stopped him he wouldn't have fell over.
The headline would then be 'ONCE AGAIN IT SEEMS THAT IT'S ALL THE POLICE'S FAULT'.
Therefore my headline would be correct, and his opinion not.
Of course numbers come into it. The article is about whether stopping large numbers of Muslims leads to radicalization. You even say in your OP that Mahmood is trying to get the number of searches cut down.
I sometimes wonder if you have short term memory loss as you seem to forget what your original point is.
I sometimes wonder if you have short term memory loss as you seem to forget what your original point is.
1 to 18 of 18
Latest Posts
A Tory Thank You To Pensioner's
News20 mins ago
What Store Did Cliff Richard Open In...
Music26 mins ago
Animals & Nature26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.